S02 - Past Performance Questionnaire ROBOT .docx

DOCX document 34 KB Posted

Attached to
Amendment 0007 Replace Inpatient Robot - PAD 36C261-24-AP-5262 | 640-25-1-5281-0005 | project 640-24-113 |
Solicitation number
36C26125R0014
Issued by

About this file

This document is a Past Performance Questionnaire related to a federal contract opportunity to replace an inpatient pharmacy robot at the VA Palo Alto Health Care System. The questionnaire provides instructions and a rating scale for evaluating the past performance of offerors on criteria such as quality, schedule, customer satisfaction, management, cost control, and safety. The contract opportunity, Solicitation Number 36C26125R0014, is to prepare the site and install a new Omnicell XR-2 Inpatient Pharmacy Robot to replace an outdated model. The work will be executed in multiple phases, with the contractor responsible for coordinating with the equipment vendor, providing utility connections, and performing necessary construction activities like floor and ceiling repairs. The project duration is estimated at 9 weeks from removal of the existing robot to completion of the new robot installation, with a separate 1-week timeline for the Yuyama packager replacement. The contractor must comply with VA standards, interim life safety measures, and infection control requirements during the construction.

View the file

Other files

File Type Posted
Wage Decision Number CA20240018 12.20.2024.pdf PDF
36C26125R0014 0007.docx DOCX document
36C26125R0014 0006.docx DOCX document
36C26125R0014 0005.docx DOCX document
12.20.2024 Response to RFIs.docx DOCX document
12.13.2024 Site Visit Log.pdf PDF
36C26125R0014 0004.docx DOCX document
Updated Enclosure 9_Inpatient Pharmacy Robot_ICRA.pdf PDF
36C26125R0014 0003 SF30.docx DOCX document
36C26125R0014 0001.docx DOCX document
VA Palo Alto Site Plan.pdf PDF
36C26125R0014 0002.docx DOCX document
S02 RFI FORM.docx DOCX document
P07 DOL WAGE CA20240018 10.18.2024.pdf PDF
Enclosure 4_AIO Readiness Guide.pdf PDF
Enclosure 11_B100 E1-120 GPR Report.pdf PDF
Enclosure 13_Exist Air Compressor-Air Dryer location.pdf PDF
Enclosure 12_Yuyama Equipment Specs.pdf PDF
Enclosure 3_Blister Packager Specs.pdf PDF
Enclosure 9_Inpatient Pharmacy Robot_ICRA.pdf PDF
S02 RFI FORM.docx DOCX document
SPECS.zip ZIP file
Enclosure 8_AIO Layout.pdf PDF
Enclosure 7_Reflected Ceiling Plan above Robot.pdf PDF
Enclosure 10_Pharmacy Robot Replacement B100 Structural Drawings.pdf PDF
Enclosure 2_Yuyama Packager Specs.pdf PDF
Enclosure 1_Omnicell XR2 Customer Readiness Guide.pdf PDF
852.219-75 VA NOTICE OF LIMITATIONS SUBCONTRACTING-CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE.docx DOCX document
Enclosure 5_Scanner Specifications.pdf PDF
Enclosure 14_New Patch Panel Location.pdf PDF
36C26125R0014.docx DOCX document
Cost Breakdown.docx DOCX document
Enclosure 6_Fit-Test Plan.pdf PDF
Show all 33

On GovTribe

Work with this file

  • Download the original file
  • Contacts named in this file
  • Similar government files
  • Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Text version

36C26125R0014 Replace Inpatient Robot VA Palo Alto

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUCTIONS

VA Palo Alto Health Care System Palo Alto, California 94304

The information obtained from this questionnaire will be utilized to evaluate the past performance of offerors submitting proposals in response to the 36C26125R0014, Replace Inpatient Robot, VA Palo Alto. The information you provide will be instrumental in allowing the Government to evaluate how well the contractor performed under your contract(s).

a. Please complete all sections of the attached questionnaire. Include your name and title, organizational address, e-mail address, and telephone number.

b. Include the contractor’s name, your point of contact (POC,) the title and/or description of the type of work performed the award number, the value of the contract, the award and completion date of the project and the type of award.

c. Use the attached rating scale rate each performance element.

d. Comments are encouraged and would be appreciated. The last page may be used if additional space is needed for comments. Clear handwritten responses are sufficient.

e. Due to time constraints, it is important that the questionnaire be completed and returned by the due date outlined in the solicitation documents. Please e-mail your response with the RFP/RFQ numbers as the subject line and send to BOTH of the following addresses: charee.harris@va.gov AND alison.weinstein@va.gov

Thank you for your time and participation.

PAST PERFORMANCE RATING SCALE

RATING:
DEFINITION:
USAGE:
EXCEPTIONAL
Performance exceeded many contractual requirements to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with no more than a few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.
An EXCEPTIONAL rating is appropriate when the contractor successfully performed multiple significant events that were of benefit to the Government/Owner. A singular benefit however could be of such magnitude that it alone constitutes an Exceptional rating. Also there should have been NO significant weaknesses identified
GOOD
Performance exceeded some contractual requirements to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with no more than a few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.
A GOOD rating is appropriate when the contractor has successfully performed a significant event that was a benefit to the Government/Owner. There should have been no significant weaknesses identified.
SATISFACTORY
Performance met all contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the elements being assessed were accomplished with no more than a few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory.
A SATISFACTORY rating is appropriate when there were only a few minor problems, or major problems that the contractor recovered from without impact to the contract. There should have been NO significant weaknesses identified.
MARGINAL
Performance did not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully successful.
A MARGINAL rating is appropriate when a significant event occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming which impacted the Government/Owner.
UNSATISFACTORY
Performance did not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions were ineffective.
An UNSATISFACTORY rating is appropriate when multiple significant events occurred that the contractor had trouble overcoming and which impacted the Government/Owner. A singular problem, however could be of such serious magnitude that it alone constitutes an unsatisfactory rating.
Neutral/Not Applicable or Unknown
No performance record identifiable within the area of evaluation
Performance was not observed or not applicable to the current effort being reported.

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

NAME OF CONTRACTOR BEING EVALUATED:

CONTRACTOR MAIN POC

CONTRACT NUMBER:

CONTRACT VALUE:

CONTRACTOR PERFORMED WORK AS:
CONTRACT AWARD & COMPLETION DATE:

Prime Contractor Sub- Contractor Key Personnel

PROJECT TITLE AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF WORK:

RESPONDENT’S NAME

YOUR ORGANIZATIONAL ADDRESS

PHONE NO:

E-MAIL:

1. QUALITY:

A. Quality of technical data/report preparation efforts
RATING
E
G
S
M
U
N

Comments:

B. Ability to meet quality standards specified for technical performance
RATING
E
G
S
M
U
N

Comments:

C. Timeliness/effectiveness of contract problem resolution without extensive customer guidance
RATING
E
G
S
M
U
N

Comments:

D. Adequacy/effectiveness of quality control program and adherence to contract quality assurance requirements (without adverse effect on performance)
RATING
E
G
S
M
U
N

Comments:

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED

2. SCHEDULE/TIMELINESS OF PERFORMANCE:

A. Compliance with contract delivery/completion schedules including any significant intermediate milestones
RATING
E
G
S
M
U
N

Comments:

B. Rate the contractor’s use of available resources to accomplish tasks
RATING
E
G
S
M
U
N

Comments:

3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION:

A. To what extent were the end users satisfied with the project?
RATING
E
G
S
M
U
N

Comments:

B. Contractor was reasonable and cooperative in dealing with your staff (including the ability to successfully resolve disagreements/disputes; responsiveness to administrative reports and business communication)
RATING
E
G
S
M
U
N

Comments:

C. To what extent was the contractor cooperative, businesslike and concerned with the interests of the customer?
RATING
E
G
S
M
U
N

Comments:

D. Overall customer satisfaction
RATING
E
G
S
M
U
N

Comments:

4. MANAGEMENT/PERSONNEL/LABOR

A. Effectiveness of on-site management, including management of subcontractors, suppliers, materials and/or labor force?
RATING
E
G
S
M
U
N

Comments:

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED

B. Ability to hire, apply and retain a qualified workforce to the effort
RATING
E
G
S
M
U
N

Comments:

C. Government Property Control
RATING
E
G
S
M
U
N

Comments:

D. Knowledge/expertise demonstrated by contractor personnel
RATING
E
G
S
M
U
N

Comments:

E. Ability to simultaneously manage multiple projects with multiple disciplines.
RATING
E
G
S
M
U
N

Comments:

F. Ability to assimilate and incorporate changes in requirements or priority, including planning, execution and response to Government changes
RATING
E
G
S
M
U
N

Comments:

G. Effectiveness of overall management (including ability to effectively lead, manage and control the program)
RATING
E
G
S
M
U
N

Comments:

5. COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

A. Ability to meet the terms and conditions contractually agreed to price(s)?
RATING
E
E
E
E
E
E

Comments:

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED

B. Contractor proposed innovative alternative methods/processes that reduced costs, improved maintainability or other factors that benefited the client.
RATING
E
G
S
M
U
N

Comments:

C. If this is/was a Government cost type contract, please rate the contractor’s timeliness and accuracy in submitting monthly invoices with appropriate backup documentation, monthly status reports/budget variance reports, compliance with established budges and avoidance of significant and/or unexplained variances (under runs or overruns)
RATING
E
G
S
M
U
N

Comments:

D. Have there been any indications that the contractor has had any financial problems? If yes please explain below
RATING
Yes
No

Comments:

6. SAFETY/SECURITY:

A. To what extent was the contractor able to maintain an environment of safety, adhere to its approved safety plan and respond to safety issues?

(Includes: following the user’s rules, regulations, and requirements regarding housekeeping, safety, correction of noted deficiencies, etc.)

RATING

E
G
S
M
U
N

Comments:

B. Contractor complied with all security requirements for the project and personnel security requirements.
RATING
E
G
S
M
U
N

Comments:

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED

7. GENERAL:

A. Ability to successfully respond to emergency and/or surge situations (including notifying COR, PM, or Contracting officer in a timely manner regarding urgent contractual issues.)
RATING
E
G
S
M
U
N

Comments:

B. Compliance with contractual terms/provisions (explain if specific issues)
RATING
E
G
S
M
U
N

Comments:

C. Would you hire or work with this firm again (if no, please explain below)

RATING

Yes
No
D. In summary, provide an overall rating for the work performed by this contractor.
RATING
E
G
S
M
U
N

Comments:

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE WHEN COMPLETED

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .